Running the ball consistently without the ability to run effectively is going to put them in 3rd and long. It is going to come up short when you need to rely on it. 3rd & short, goal line and protecting a 4th quarter lead.

What I am looking for is the ability to run the ball effectively.

Cart before the horse? BS. The Packers have had the talent IMO. It simply had not been used correctly.

If your HC is OK with pass:run ratios of 8:1, your OL will never be able to wear out an opponent to effectively run block. Run blocking is all about precision and power, knocking your opponent backwards off his mark. Good run blocking is simply the result of going to this well again and again. That is what makes good running teams.

"Effective" isn't just "oh, good, this is working. Now lets use it." I don't buy any of this stuff about us not being able to run last season. Too often, we simply chose not to, especially during our first 5 games, taking us to a 2-3 record.

Lets put it this way: our own OL complained publicly after our loss to IND. Were those complaints about their position coach, Campen? Their supposedly shitty RBs? No, they were about the play calling that chose pass over run, again and again and again, resulting in a really fucking stupid loss. Should have never happened. Same with the SEA game.

I am more in the line with the camp of people that say with teams like this that your best defense is offense. The gameplan is a risk if it doesn't work, but I believe the best plan is to shorten the game with long clock killing drives. The more time teams like the 49ers are on the field with that QB, the more they will hurt you. Once Kap gets into rhythm, I don't believe you can stop him. To me he is one of the most exciting players in the NFL.

Cart before the horse? BS. The Packers have had the talent IMO. It simply had not been used correctly.

If your HC is OK with pass:run ratios of 8:1, your OL will never be able to wear out an opponent to effectively run block. Run blocking is all about precision and power, knocking your opponent backwards off his mark. Good run blocking is simply the result of going to this well again and again. That is what makes good running teams.

"Effective" isn't just "oh, good, this is working. Now lets use it." I don't buy any of this stuff about us not being able to run last season. Too often, we simply chose not to, especially during our first 5 games, taking us to a 2-3 record.

Lets put it this way: our own OL complained publicly after our loss to IND. Were those complaints about their position coach, Campen? Their supposedly shitty RBs? No, they were about the play calling that chose pass over run, again and again and again, resulting in a really fucking stupid loss. Should have never happened. Same with the SEA game.

Coincidentally, Benson also sucked as a runner and always has. He was all they had in the first 5 games.

So who was the RB that wasn't "Supposedly shitty"? Who had a good YPC average in the first 5 games. Green playing on a bad leg, Saine on IR or Starks on PUP?

Because if they were not really shitty and it was the lack of attempts, they should have had a decent YPC and not many carries.

In the Colts game, the Packers had their 3rd highest rushing total of the year.

The D giving up 30 is much more to blame than the lack of a run game.

Dropping picks was one of the issues I would identify as the biggest reason we lost. Not the run game.

Did Benson suck against CHI when he rushed 20 times for 81 yds and a 4.1 ypc average? Did Benson suck against NO when he rushed 18 times for 87 yds and a 4.7 ypc average?

Maybe you are forgetting how we wound up 21-3 early in the 2nd Q v. IND. it was a balanced attack of run/pass, one that McCarhty went away from, allowing IND back into the game, serving us a 27-30 loss.

BTW, here is how we started the 3rd Q, up 21-3: pass, pass, pass, pass, INT. pass, pass, pass, PUNT. The 4th Q was sickeningly over pass happy. Benson wasn't our only rusher either. Alex Green was averaging 6.1 ypc in that game...

There is a way to run, and a way not to run. Benson had all 9 carries by our RBs for the entire freaking game v. SF. Benson had 2 of our 3 first half carries v. SEA, while Aaron Rodgers was sacked 8 times in that same half. Game over. Should have been anyway. Dumbest real time game management I may have ever seen.

We should have won that game hands down, but we severely mismanaged the run game the entire first half while Rodgers was getting killed. What the F did McCarthy not see? I mean, in that first half? In the moment, when he should have total control of the game and his team's plays? That blew my mind. After he gets into the locker room, he realizes his folly, and gives Benson 10 carries in the 3rd Q. We owned that Q, yet only came away with a pair of FGs. Had he handed Benson the rock through all 4 Quarters like he did in the 3rd, we would have won. Guaranteed.

Maybe I exaggerated with the ratio for those first 5 games, but if you look at when it mattered most, maybe not, especially in our losses, which is what we are talking about.

You are revising history to fit your argument. Benson was good prior to his injury, and he was not used properly in our 3 losses.

Who else were we suppose to give the ball too beside Benson in the SF game?

Starks was out, Saine was out, Green wasn't ready. NOBODY else was on the roster. They stopped running because Benson was getting 2 per.

Benson ended the season just under his career average. Benson sucked last year like he always had. He had a decent, but not great game against Chicago with some extra personal motivation.

The Saints had a horrible run D. The were 32nd in YPC allowed. They averaged giving up 5.2 per. So Benson getting 4.7 per is BELOW AVERAGE. Because he sucks.

Benson had a 2.9 in the Colts game, a 2 in the SF game and a 2.7 in the Seattle game. Because he sucks

Since Benson has always done that. He has a 3.8 career, 3.8 in Cincy and a 3.8 in Chicago. So I wasn't surprised he had a 3.5 for us. I actually expected it

Regardless of how he looks, he didn't produce like Grant (who nobody likes in spite of having the same YPC as Emmitt Smith.)

In the Seattle game McCarthey was probably thinking in that since we only have Benson and he sucks, we should try and supplement the running game with a WCO style short passing game to the Back. Trying to get some rhythm, but the sacks and penalties kept disrupting that. We can't run it when we are always behind the sticks. 2nd and 17 is not a running down.

And yes, I still consider running the ball on one play in the first quarter and on three plays total in the first half while passing the ball 27 plays qualifying as abandoning the run, not 'supplementing the running game'.

And yes, I still consider running the ball on one play in the first quarter and on three plays total in the first half while passing the ball 27 plays qualifying as abandoning the run, not 'supplementing the running game'.

Whether Benson truly sucked, or not, I don't think that was the issue at times early last season. I think the coaching staff felt relatively confident in him. I just think they feel more confident in Aaron Rodgers and the passing game. As they most certainly should. That's always going to be the case except maybe if the Packers had Adrian Peterson and even then it's going to be close. So regardless, patient must be maintained in the play-calling and the offensive line play must improve. Those two are inseparable and integrated together.

That is why it is important not to get too involved with one reason why a game is lost because there are so many variables and each player on both teams has a part in it as well as the coaches. As I understand it, sticking to your game plan in times of adversity can certainly be one of the hardest decisions coaches can make in professional sports.

One of the reasons the naysayers say we are not physical enough is that we rarely impose our will in the run game. So we can blame coaching, schematics, the players, and/or give credit to the opposing defenses... it is a part of all those things. Or we can also look at Aaron Rodgers can say the more times he has the ball in his hands the better. Sometimes yes, but clearly that leads to being one-dimensional as they say.

It is safe to assume that losing the way we did to the Giants and 49ers, who are widely known as the more physical of the NFC teams, had a lot to do with moving o-line players which effects schematics and drafting two highly regarding running backs in the draft which should effect performance in a positive way.

That is why it is important not to get too involved with one reason why a game is lost because there are so many variables and each player on both teams has a part in it as well as the coaches. As I understand it, sticking to your game plan in times of adversity can certainly be one of the hardest decisions coaches can make in professional sports.

One of the reasons the naysayers say we are not physical enough is that we rarely impose our will in the run game. So we can blame coaching, schematics, the players, and/or give credit to the opposing defenses... it is a part of all those things. Or we can also look at Aaron Rodgers can say the more times he has the ball in his hands the better. Sometimes yes, but clearly that leads to being one-dimensional as they say.

It is safe to assume that losing the way we did to the Giants and 49ers, who are widely known as the more physical of the NFC teams, had a lot to do with moving o-line players which effects schematics and drafting two highly regarding running backs in the draft which should effect performance in a positive way.

And yes Benson sucked... haha

The Packers beat the Texans , the Vikings 2 times and the Bears 2 times.

Well yeah ... thats kinda part of the point :) Everyone team is physical. It's football. It seems like the word applies more however to those teams that can impose their will on the other in the run game more consistently is what I was trying to get across.

And yes, I still consider running the ball on one play in the first quarter and on three plays total in the first half while passing the ball 27 plays qualifying as abandoning the run, not 'supplementing the running game'.

Abandon what running game?

We didn't have a running game to abandon.

Included in the design of the WCO is replacing a portion of the running game with what becomes a really long hand off.

The Packers did try to do that. What it is called isn't as important as what its function is in the offense. A screen is kind of replacing the draw. Swing pass kind of replaces a sweep in function. It goes into the "pass" stat column, but the function is more like that of a run.

They were out of running backs and they had to replace Bensons running with something.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.